Bemoaning Obama

To Whom It May Concern (I wrote at the Obama website),

I have been a strong supporter of Obama since he was in a tough campaign for the Democratic spot on the Senate ticket. Running against a Chicago machine Democrat with all kinds of support, his looked a quixotic campaign at best. But one worth running.

Even then, with an audience measuring in the small thousands, he seemed to promise a new way of approaching politics.

I believed in him again through a tough Democratic primary against a candidate that only a few years ago I wanted badly to one day be president: Hillary Clinton.

I believed in him more as he made inspirational speeches on important issues and difficult stands on issues not always immediately popular.

Now, I wonder if that belief, no, that faith, is not misguided. Over the last couple of weeks I have found Obama to be pandering to voters and to wealthy donors in ways that I find deeply disappointing at best, his defense of FISA for instance, left me shaking my head in disbelief.

I donated money to twice to the campaign to make this man president?

If I wanted to throw my support against the Constitution it appears I have come to the right place. I am embarrassed that a candidate I have defended and argued for, has turned his back on the values that make this country worth fighting for.

I am not against "flip-flopping" when circumstances change - for instance, in Iraq we are at an odd moment, and perhaps we will have to slow down our military withdrawal, more competent people than I know more - and unlike Bush, I hope Obama listens to them. To a certain extent, I understand Obama's need to maintain some positional flexibility, not for reasons of politics so much as for reasons of policy. I remain deeply convinced however, that we must end the abyss of money that goes into that war as quickly as is actually possible.

But his support of three things bother me to the point where I will withdraw my active support if they are views that are real or left unexplained in any cogent manner:

1) His support of the Supreme Court's ruling (a ruling led by Scalia, Alito and Roberts) that endangered protective laws against guns. I can't imagine a man who has worked with urban non-profit groups could possibly be for this ruling. As somebody who works in a deeply troubled New York City High School, I know first-hand what guns on the street can do to children. One of my students was shot through the heart, a random victim of a drive-by. She lived. She shuddered in class sometimes, they used to call that shell-shock. Now it's post-traumatic stress disorder. Another student of mine got shot seventeen times. Finally, one other, on her way to a bodega four years ago, never made it home. On their graduation day last week, my students had a moment of silence for her. A life should be worth more than a moment of silence, it should contain multitudes, instead, of celebration and joy. In Chicago, some teachers are afraid their students will revolt if they find out one more of their classmates was a victim of gun/gang violence. Clearly, laws already don't work, but instead of destroying them, perhaps we should find ways to strengthen them. Perhaps the gun dealers who knowingly sell to dealers who will re-sell or distribute should find themselves in danger of devastating prison sentences. Perhaps manufacturers should not be allowed to market or develop certain types of guns that appeal to gangsters.

Perhaps Obama should take another look at the language of the Second Amendment, written at a time when on our borders were lined with foreign threats and sometime hostile Indian tribes, this in a time before organized police forces. The second amendment reads differently if viewed through this prism. It basically seems to say that creating defense forces (like the police) cannot be limited by Federal authority.

2) His sudden support for FISA. This is a sickening and pandering play to the "Middle" of the electorate still scared by a political system more eager to blind its citizens than inform them. How has this happened? Well, whatever bright-eyed aide convinced him of this should be fired. Turning our backs on the Constitution's protections is not something I want my president to do. Ever. I felt sucker punched by this. Especially considering his prior statements about this act, which showed a nuanced contempt.

3) Finally I could not believe that Obama criticized the Court decision that limited the death penalty to cases involving murder. While the death penalty is a deeply flawed instrument of revenge in a system of law - already philosophically troubled - I have given up hope of a candidate with the courage to challenge its existence. But not to challenge its use as it is practiced in the United States? Not to ask the very real and excellent questions asked in the majority opinion is folly. How can one, for instance, quantify a non-murder crime? To what extent will the death penalty option bury certain sex crimes (since many involving children are sadly within family)? How will the courts handle the glut of procedures that might follow an enacting of this kind of punishment for this kind of crime? They're already overburdened. Should the Supreme Court protect the functionality of the court system as laid out in Article Three of the Constitution? At a time when in Illinois the death penalty has already been proven broken and unjust, it seems we should question with great skepticism any expansion of the death penalty, at the very least.

Obama, instead of asking these real questions, instead of challenging conventional wisdom and forcing voters to look deeper into the ideas of what it means to be an American, is settling for pandering. Pandering is the Bush administration. We don't need that anymore.

I thought we were supposed to be supporting a change: to how politicians gamed the system and left Americans out of the loop and vulnerable to the abuses of power.

I wonder now just what we are supporting.

with continued hope but shaken faith,

Andrew Decker
Brooklyn, NY//Mt. Prospect, IL

Where logic "doesn't have no relevance"...

How is she pandering and slobbering today?

a) going on about elites
b) pretending she understands long commutes and pain of gas prices
c) not putting in her lot with so-called "experts"
d) talking about the little people she's meeting
e) all of the above

If you've guessed (e) then you've really got the measure of perhaps the most depressing and dispiriting descent into political opportunism since, oh, 2004.

From the Times:

This morning, George Stephanopoulos began his televised interview with Senator Hillary Clinton by asking if she could name a single economist who supports her plan for a gas tax suspension.

She did not. “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists,” she said on ABC’s “This Week” program. A few moments later, she added, “Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.”

Throughout the exchange, Mrs. Clinton argued that she trusted her own eyes and ears instead. “This gas tax issue to me is very real because I have been meeting people across Indiana and North Carolina who drive for a living, who commute long distances, who would save money,” she said.

Senator Barack Obama has derided the gas-tax suspension as a gimmick that would save consumers little and cost thousands of jobs, and Kara Glennon, a member of the audience at a town-hall meeting, seemed to agree. Gas prices are “not academic” for her, she told Mrs. Clinton, because she makes less than $25,000 a year—and then she accused Mrs. Clinton of pandering. “Call me crazy, but I listen to economists because I think I know what they studied,” she said.

However, in an interview afterward, Mark Moorman, another audience member and a firefighter, said he shared Mrs. Clinton’s mistrust of experts. Political candidates cite economists but they “never say anybody’s name, or where the study came from,” he said. “So as far as me, it doesn’t have no relevance.”

Hillary Clinton, caring about the little people, because you know, the Clintons have always cared about the little people. I mean she was on the board at Wal-Mart, and everybody knows how well Wal-Mart has cared for its employees and in what high esteem they hold them. Hell, Sam Walton, that little person of little people, went so far as to call her "a great friend of ours." And by "ours" of course he meant little people everywhere, not those big nasty elites. And by elites, of course I'm not talking about somebody worth $109 million dollars or the dozens of billions of dollars the Waltons are worth. I'm talking about you and me, so Hillary, I believe you, and I invite you to come to my school and tell my students to their faces why as Senator you have put absolutely no pressure on the state of New York to make sure that our school gets just as much money per student as the schools in Great Neck and Chautauqua and then you can tell them about how you had no problem authorizing the insane president of the United States to use these same little people to go to Iraq seven or eight times each, some of them, to fight a war for the other little people like Haliburton and the various fellows of the Carlyle Fund. Maybe we can talk about what you did on your time at Wal-Mart to help the workers unionize or get higher pay or greater access to health care - after all, health care is so important to you and the little people are so important to you, I'm sure you have all kinds of things you can say. Or you can prattle on about the elites some more and we can all wonder at the inanity of this campaign being run in the middle of a moment when the only important things are the things we are not talking anything about.